[3dem] FEI extended mrc format

Ardan Patwardhan ardan at ebi.ac.uk
Wed Feb 8 14:31:29 PST 2012


Dear Misjaël, Remco and Beata

Many thanks for your speedy(!) and comprehensive replies - we had some
software choking on this format and your replies will help us fix that.
For what its worth, I found the following:
http://situs.biomachina.org/fmap.pdf
which provides an excellent overview of the mrc flavours.

Best wishes
Ardan Patwardhan
EMBL-EBI,
Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK
+44 1223 492 649


> Return-Path: <m.n.lebbink at gmail.com>
> Received: from imap05.ebi.ac.uk ([unix socket])
> 	 by imap05.ebi.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.3.16-Fedora-RPM-2.3.16-6.el6_1.4) with
> LMTPA;
> 	 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:03:33 +0000
> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
> Received: from smtp01.ebi.ac.uk (smtp01.ebi.ac.uk [172.28.241.1])
> 	by imap05.ebi.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q18M3Xoc031990
> 	for <ardan at imap05.ebi.ac.uk>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:03:33 GMT
> Received: from mx2.ebi.ac.uk (mx2.ebi.ac.uk [193.62.195.234])
> 	by smtp01.ebi.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q18M3WPR016914
> 	for <ardan at ebi.ac.uk>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:03:32 GMT
> Received: from mx2.ebi.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> 	by localhost (Email Security Appliance) with SMTP id
> C6FEF2C2A2BA_F32F134B
> 	for <ardan at ebi.ac.uk>; Wed,  8 Feb 2012 22:03:32 +0000 (GMT)
> Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com
> [74.125.83.44])
> 	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
> 	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified
> OK))
> 	by mx2.ebi.ac.uk (Sophos Email Appliance) with ESMTP id
> 6AD742C2A2AA_F32F133F
> 	for <ardan at ebi.ac.uk>; Wed,  8 Feb 2012 22:03:31 +0000 (GMT)
> Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so401732eek.17
>         for <ardan at ebi.ac.uk>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:03:31 -0800 (PST)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>         d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>         h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer:mime-version
>          :content-type;
>         bh=SQx1gNCzePdnO7JK9B7OgDXr2nug2/KHOOrGWwzOImw=;
>         b=BFHckehqucs2uvO5AgauqD5hwf55skmaLOglgqqo8euolKfSJ6K26YJTR21MNuuezw
>          h+meYepV/fAlcUF69TdkwFV1xBvw36FvbwB2F/orGMSNnKgRHMNCFFF/op0yI1mqmE8B
>          GLt3DiWHYtcWR+0xn/O4jSnQkGebmJDeqDETc=
> Received: by 10.14.95.208 with SMTP id p56mr2241083eef.129.1328738610598;
>         Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:03:30 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from www.palm.com (5ED023AF.cm-7-1a.dynamic.ziggo.nl.
> [94.208.35.175])
>         by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
> v51sm1991698eef.2.2012.02.08.14.03.29
>         (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
>         Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:03:30 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <4f32f132.cb620e0a.362f.497b at mx.google.com>
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:03:31 +0100
> From: <m.n.lebbink at gmail.com>
> To: <ardan at ebi.ac.uk>, <3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [3dem] FEI extended mrc format
> In-Reply-To: <33635.86.178.88.153.1328736349.squirrel at webmail.ebi.ac.uk>
> X-Mailer: Palm webOS
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1328738611"
> X-Sophos-ESA: [mx2.ebi.ac.uk] 3.6.13.2, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.1390750,
> Antispam-Data: 2012.2.8.214815
>
> --Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1328738611
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hello Ardan<br><br>It depends...if you simply want to distinguish between
> s=
> tandard MRC (header 1024) and MRC files with an extended header (1024+n)
> yo=
> u will have to check the size of said extended header (see 92 in both the
> f=
> ile you referenced and here:
> http://bio3d.colorado.edu/imod/doc/mrc_format.=
> txt). This will provide you with the actual size of the header (1024+this
> v=
> alue).&nbsp;<br><br>On the other hand, if you specifically want to
> identify=
>  a FEI MRC file and interpret the different bytes in their extended header
> =
> you should take a look at the descriptive labels (224). It states in the
> de=
> scription that 'Label 0 is used for copyright information (FEI)'. This
> woul=
> d be the best ID marker.<br><br>Whether the 2nd approach is needed depends
> =
> entirely on your question (nine out of ten times you don't)...the first
> sho=
> uld always be implemented (although it is not always the case, and some
> app=
> lications will mess up importing these files).<br><br>Also, just for the
> re=
> cord, FEI's MRC files are conform the MRC standard. So technically there
> is=
>  no difference between the FEI MRC format and the standard MRC format. FEI
> =
> just uses an extended header to store additional information; but this too
> =
> is conform the standard.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Misja=C3=ABl N
> Lebbink=
> <br>Biomolecular Imaging<br>Utrecht University<br>The
> Netherlands<br><br><b=
> r>_______________________________________________ <br><span
> class=3D"Apple-=
> style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 128); font-family: Prelude, Verdana,
> =
> san-serif; ">On 8 Feb 2012 22:26, Ardan Patwardhan &lt;ardan at ebi.ac.uk&gt;
> =
> wrote:&nbsp;</span>Dear All=0A<br>=0A<br>I have a question regarding the
> FE=
> I extended mrc
> format=0A<br>(http://www.2dx.unibas.ch/documentation/mrc-sof=
> tware/mrc-documentation/fei-extended-mrc-format-not-used-by-2dx-nor-mrc).=
> =0A<br>When reading in this format, how does one distinguish between it
> and=
>  the=0A<br>standard mrc format, e.g., is there a header record which
> unique=
> ly=0A<br>identifies it as the fei mrc?=0A<br>=0A<br>Many thanks and best
> wi=
> shes=0A<br>=0A<br>Ardan Patwardhan=0A<br>EMBL-EBI,=0A<br>Hinxton,
> Cambridge=
>  CB10 1SD, UK=0A<br>+44 1223 492
> 649=0A<br>=0A<br>_________________________=
> ______________________=0A<br>3dem mailing
> list=0A<br>3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu=0A=
> <br>https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem=0A
> --Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1328738611--
>




More information about the 3dem mailing list